Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Certiorari Impeachment PDF
Certiorari Impeachment PDF
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES of the
13th CONGRESS, represented by
REP. JOSE DE VENECIA, Speaker
of the House of Representatives
and the COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE, represented by REP.
SIMEON DATUMANONG,
Committee Chairperson,
Respondents.
X__________________________X
P E T I T I O N FOR CERTIORARI
A. PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. Ours is a Constitution tempered by the fires of its time. Borne out of a long
struggle for freedom from Martial Law, it has given us a Supreme Court of
innovation,1 one that, in fact, is endowed with expansive powers of, and
yes, duty to, review cases and controversies.
2. Indeed, it is a Constitution that has entrusted upon our High Court the
dutyto settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.2
3. What we then have is a system of judicial review that, as the Supreme Court
has noted in one landmark ruling not too long ago, broadens the scope of
judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions,
would have normally left to the political departments to decide.3
1See
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 881211, September 15, 1989; 177 SCRA 695 (1989).
6. Today, the duty of the Court to check the abusive acts of another branch of
government in this case, the legislature, in what, in other jurisdictions,
would constitute a political question immune to judicial intervention is
once again being invoked.
Francisco, et al., v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 160206, November 10,
2003.[Hereinafter, Francisco case].
parameters; where those charged by the Constitution with the sole power to
prosecute an impeachable public officerin this case, Gloria MacapagalArroyo, President of the Philippines transgressed the bounds set by the
same Constitution for the exercise of such power, it would be
a clear
7 The point can well be seen in the following excerpts from a debate in the 1986 Constitutional
Commission deliberations :
MR. TREAS. Madam President, may I just ask a few questions of the
Committee for clarification.
According to Section 3, subparagraph 2, after a complaint for
impeachment is filed, it is referred to the proper committee of the House
for investigation and report. My question now is: If after the investigation
and report, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence in support of the
complaint for impeachment and taking into account political
considerations, especially if it is an impeachment against the president
and the House is controlled by his party, and necessarily the committee
also, it is dismissed, the complaint is already denied, am I right?
MR. ROMULO. Yes, that is right.
MR. TREAS. Will the person who filed the impeachment have any
remedy in view of the overwhelming evidence and the fact that the
committee acted in a capricious and whimsical manner?
MR. ROMULO. Under this proposal, the answer must be no that is why
I think Commissioner Davide has some amendments in mind to cure
these gaps in the procedure.
MR. TREAS. May it not be subject of a judicial review?
MR. ROMULO. As the Commissioner knows, in the definition of judicial
power, one might be able to secure a review by certiorari, but that is not
an expeditious remedy. So, we are open to suggestions. II RECORDS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 287 (1986). [underlining
supplied].
8. Once again, the Supreme Court is cast into the eye of a storm, as
constitutional decision-making involves policy-making and, in that sense,
politics8
B. PARTIES
10. The Petitioner, Clavel A. Martinez (4th Dist. Cebu), is one of the members of
the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress who had sought to impeach
the President of the Philippines. She is an endorser of one of the
impeachment complaints the amended one in question in this instant case
and is filing this Petition on the legal doctrine that legislators have standing to
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the
Constitution in their office,10 and are allowed to sue to question the validity of
any official action which infringes their prerogatives as legislators.11
8Vicente
V. Mendoza, The Protection of Liberties and Citizens Rights: The Role of the Philippine
Supreme Court, 21 HUMAN RIGHTS L. J. 129 (1999); also excerpted in VICENTE V.V.
MENDOZA, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS: CASES AND
MATERIALS 296 (2004).
9G.R.
10
Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, November 16, 1995. See also Philippine International
Air Terminals Co., G.R. No.155001, May 5, 2003.
11
11. The Petitioners below, filing the instant Petition in propria personae, are
members of the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices. They are members in good
standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, who, as officers of the court,
and as taxpayers and citizens, have a direct interest in the faithful adherence
to constitutional processes of their elected representatives in Congress12:
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
Roger R. Rayel;
11.4.
11.5.
Gary S. Mallari;
11.6.
11.7.
12
For one, their oath as lawyers obligates them to support the Constitution. Also, as held in the
Francisco case:
When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the
constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be
able to show, not only that the law or government act is invalid, but also
that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers
thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person
complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to
which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some
burdens or penalties by reason of the statue or act complained of. In
fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public
right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the
requirement of personal interest. GR. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003.
[emphasis supplied].
14. The Respondents may be served with court processes at the House of
Representatives, Batasan Complex, National Government Center, Quezon
City.
15. On June 27, 2005, lawyer Oliver Lozano filed an unverified complaint for
impeachment against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines
with the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress.
hereinafter
16. On June 28, 2005 Lozano filed a supplemental complaint of the same date.15
13
14
15
16
18. On June 30, 2005, he filed a third supplemental complaint of the same date.17
19. On the same day, lawyer Joselito Rizaldo Lopez filed a Motion and
Manifestation for Leave to be allowed to be a Co-complainant of Atty. Oliver
Lozano Relative to his Complaint for Impeachment of the same date.18
20. On July 4, 2005, Lozano filed a fourth supplemental complaint dated July 1,
200519, and a fifth supplemental complaint20 dated July 4, 2005.
21. On the same day, Lopez filed his own impeachment complaint, also
unverified, charging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines,
with betrayal of public trust.21 [hereinafter, LOPEZ COMPLAINT]. The
complaint, curiously similar in language and substance to the ORIGINAL
LOZANO COMPLAINT, was endorsed by Rep. Antonio Alvarez (1st
Dist.
Palawan).22
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23. On July 18, 2005, Rep. Rolex Suplico endorsed the ORIGINAL LOZANO
COMPLAINT.24
24. On July 19, 2005, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines filed
through lawyer Pedro M. Ferrer an Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam
dated July 18, 2005[hereinafter, ANSWER].25
25. On July 21, 2005, Lozano filed a seventh supplemental complaint of the same
date.26 It should be stressed that none of the seven supplemental complaints
was endorsed.
26. On July 25, 2005, at 8:01 a.m., House Speaker De Venecia referred to the
Secretary General of the House of Representatives the ORIGINAL LOZANO
COMPLAINT, the resolutions for endorsement filed by Rep. Marcoleta and
Rex Suplico, along with other documents:27
27. That same day, at around 9:30 a.m. members of the Minority bloc in the
House of Representatives, party-list representatives, and joined by concerned
private citizens filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT before the Office of the
24A copy of the Suplico Resolution of Endorsement is attached as ANNEX B-1. The Committee on
Justice puts it at July 14, 2005. See infra note 36, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 at 2.
25
26
A copy of the Speakers Memorandum to the Secretary General dated July 25, 2005 is attached
as ANNEX F.
27
28. The same day, in a meeting of the House of Representatives in plenary the
Secretary General, upon direction of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives read on First Reading the three complaints,29 simultaneously
referring all three complaints to the Committee on Justice.
29. On July 26, 2005, the Deputy Secretary General of the House of
Representatives subsequently transmitted all three complaints
the
30. On the same day, July 26, 2005, Lopez filed a Motion and Affidavit of
Withdrawal/Desistance.30
A copy of the AMENDED COMPLAINT is attached as ANNEX G. The complaint carried the
heading thus: In Re Impeachment of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President, Republic of the
Philippines.
28
29A copy of the Journal records containing the pertinent information is attached as ANNEX G-1
[H.R. JOURNAL, 13th CONG. 2d Sess. 17-18 (July 25, 2005)]. See also ANNEX G-2, a copy of the
Order of Business of the House of Representatives in plenary, for July 25, 2005, under the section
Reference of Business, through which the three complaints were simultaneously referred to the
Committee on Justice.
30
10
34. It was also the same day the Committee opened its first hearing of the
impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the
Philippines.
31
32A
33
34
11
35.1.
35.2.
Considering that the amended complaint was file don 25 July 2005
when the House had not yet adopted the Rules of Procedure on
Impeachment in the 13th Congress, under what standard or rule should
the filing of the amended complaint be assessed?
35.3.
Since
the
amended
complaint
radically
and
substantially
35.4.
35.5.
35Rep.
36G.R.
12
35.6.
35.7.
36. In that same hearing, Rep. Datumanong also raised the following issues:
36.1.
36.2.
36.3.
What is the effect of the Amended Complaint, which was the third
These issues were reflected in the Agenda sent out by the Committee the next day, along with a
Notice of Meeting, see infra note 38.
37
13
37. However, before the Committee on Justice could discuss the prejudicial
questions and Rep. Datumanongs above-quoted issues, the hearing was
suspended after members of the Minority bloc in the Committee, led by Rep.
Suplico, questioned the chairs ruling that that only regular and ex officio
members of the committee will be allowed to participate in the debates.
Thereafter, the chair moved for an executive session to resolve the
controversy.
38. On August 11, 2005 the Committee on Justice sent out notices to its members
regarding two hearings set for August 16-17, 2005, along with the Agenda for
the hearings.38 Without the prior approval of the members of the Committee
on Justice, Rep. Datumanong included in the Agenda, the above-quoted
issues and Rep. Lagmans prejudicial questions.
39. On August 16, 2005, despite the objections raised by many members of the
pro-impeachment bloc, the chairperson, Rep. Datumanong proceeded with
deliberations on the prejudicial questions.
40. The next several hearings of the Committee on Justice was marked by
protracted debates on the propriety of deliberating over the prejudicial
questions, with the majority, by sheer force of number, prevailing over the
minority when it came to a vote, 54-24, on August 23, 2005.
38A
copy of the Notice of Meeting is attached as ANNEX K ; a certified true copy of the Agenda is
attached as ANNEX K-1
14
41. In the end, the Committee on Justice whittled the prejudicial questions
down to two questions that would prove prejudicial to the AMENDED
COMPLAINT: (a) Is the AMENDED COMPLAINT filed on 25 July 2005 a
separate and new complaint instead of amendatory to the Lozano complaint
filed on 25 July 2005 a separate and new complaint instead of amendatory to
the Lozano complaint filed on 27 June 2005? (b) Did the Lozano complaint
bar the Lopez complaint and the AMENDED COMPLAINT pursuant to Art.
XII 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution?39
42. On August 30, 2005, members of the minority walked out of the hearing of
the Committee on Justice, denouncing it as a sham proceeding and
declaring that they will no longer participate in the deliberations.
43. This came after Rep. Datumanong moved to finally put to a vote the first
prejudicial question on whether the amended impeachment complaint is
separate and distinct from the one originally filed by Lozano against Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines, over objections raised by
members of the minority that the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT was a
sham complaint.
44. Rep. Datumanong also denied an appeal made by Rep. Robert Ace Barbers
(2nd Dist. Surigao Del Norte) to defer the voting and allow him to speak on a
revelation made by former Social Welfare Secretary Dinky Soliman at a press
conference in Makati City that morning that the ORIGINAL LOZANO
39
15
45. The walkout did not deter the majority in the Committee on Justice from
continuing with the proceedings and voting on the two prejudicial questions.
46. Despite the absence of member of the minority in the proceedings, the
Committee on Justice (a) voted 46-0, with one abstention, to declare the
ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT as being sufficient in form; and (b) voted
49-1, with two abstentions, to declare the same complaint insufficient in
substance.
47. By the first vote, the Committee on Justice held the AMENDED
IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT and the LOPEZ COMPLAINT as separate and
distinct from the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, and deemed these two
other complaints as barred by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
Francisco case. By the second vote, the Committee on Justice effectively shut
down the impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
President of the Philippines.
40For
an account of the walkout and the subsequent events involving the Committee on Justice,
see Alecks Pabico,Lutong Makaw Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), August
30, 2005, available at http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=343 <last visited September 20, 2005>; and
Alecks Pabico, Lozano Complaint Sufficient in Form, Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism (PCIJ), August 31, 2005, available at http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=349 <last visited
September 20, 2005>.
16
48. The decision by vote of the majority of the Committee on Justice (a) to
treat the AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT as separate and distinct from each another; (b) to dismiss the
AMENDED COMPLAINT and the LOPEZ COMPLAINT for supposedly being
barred by the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, and eventually, (c) to
dismiss the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT for being insufficient in
substance despite being sufficient in form was carried, among other matters,
in a Committee Report subsequently transmitted to the House of
Representatives sitting in plenary.41
A certified true copy of the H.R. REP. No. 1012 (Sept. 5, 2005) is attached as ANNEX
L.[Hereinafter, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012).
41
17
51. Under the Rules adopted on October 27, 2004 by the House of
Representatives [hereinafter, HOUSE RULES] to govern its proceedings,
when a measure is adopted or lost, a member of the committee who voted
with the majority, may move for its reconsideration on the same or succeeding
day. The HOUSE RULES only allows one (1) motion for reconsideration.44
A certified true copy of the record of proceedings of the House of Representatives voting in
plenary to ratify and accept COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 is attached as ANNEX M. In any case,
this matter can well be considered as one of public record, and of judicial notice. See also the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) blog entry, by Alecks Pabico, A Death
Foretold, for a news report of the results of the vote, available at
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=367 <last visited September 5, 2005>. It must also be said that
members of the pro-impeachment bloc had vigorously objected to what they said was the
questionable manner in which it was drafted.
43
44HOUSE
18
53. However, a lack of quorum barred the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration
as so described in the HOUSE RULES.45 It in effect made such filing moot
and academic.
This is now a matter of judicial notice. For an account of what transpired at the House of
Representatives on that day, the Petitioners reproduce here in full the following newspaper
article regarding the matter:
45
19
54. This is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the RULES
OF COURT.
55. This Petition asks of this Honorable Court to nullify the constitutionally
contemptible acts of the Committee on Justice as embodied in COMMITTEE
REPORT 1012, and their affirmation by the House of Representatives of the
13th Congress, voting in plenary, and to direct the House of Representatives to
designate her legal team to defend her on charges that she cheated her
way to victory in the May 2004 polls.
The opposition may only file another impeachment petition a year from
now.
Wishful thinking
Administration lawmakers, meantime, described as "wishful thinking"
attempts by their opponents to revive the impeachment complaint, as the
158 congressmen who voted to dismiss the complaint remain "solid."
"No amount of propaganda or bluffing can persuade anyone from the
majority to support the complainants bid to reverse the House decision,"
Eastern Samar Rep. Marcelino Libanan said.
"There is no chance the pro-impeachment group can convince anyone
from the anti-impeachment congressmen to move for reconsideration.
The 158 votes are still solid," he added.
Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas urged their colleagues instead to focus
on their legislative priorities. "The pro-impeachment group should stop
living in the past and thinking of what-might-have-beens."
"The nation needs to focus on urgent problems and concerns. Surely the
pro-impeachment solons did not run for office just to oust the President.
They should not be too obsessed with this undertaking," he said.
As this developed, the fate of Ilocos Norte Rep. Imee Marcos and her
status in the House minority bloc is still undecided as Escudero said their
reorganization depends on the "movements" of those in the majority,
who may also purge their ranks.
The daughter of the late strongman is in danger of losing her
membership on the powerful Commission on Appointments, the lone slot
provided to the minority bloc, following her mysterious absence during
the historic House plenary voting junking the impeachment complaint.
See Delon Porcalla, Lack of Quorom Foils Effort to Revive
Impeachment, The Philippine Star, September 20, 2005, available at
http://philstar.com/philstar/News200509200403.htm <last visited
September 20, 2005>.
20
56. The Petitioners, on account of the instant suits urgent, novel and
transcendental nature, assert that there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
58. Under Rule 65, 4 of the RULES OF COURT, the Petitioners have sixty (60)
days from the date of the questioned acts or the date of receipt of the
questioned documents within which to file this Petition to question
COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 and the plenary vote made to affirm and accept
its findings and conclusions.
59. This Petition is therefore, filed on time. The corresponding docket and other
lawful fees and deposit for costs are paid simultaneously with the filing of this
Petition.
21
F. SUBMISSIONS
I.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY VOTE OF 158-51, THE
DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,
AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO DISCUSS
PREJUDICIAL AND THRESHOLD QUESTIONS AHEAD OF A
DETERMINATION OF THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE THREE
IMPEACHMENT
COMPLAINTS,
IN
VIOLATION
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION AND ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE.
II.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THE
DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,
AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO TREAT THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, CONSIDERING THAT THE
DEFECTIVE ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT HAS ALREADY BEEN
SUPERSEDED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WHILE THE LOPEZ
COMPLAINT, IT BEING FRAUGHT WITH PROCEDURAL AND
SUBSTANTIVE INFIRMITIES, IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT.
III.
22
F. DISCUSSION
60. It should be stressed that neither the Constitution nor the RULES OF
PROCEDURE allows deliberations on prejudicial questions in an
impeachment proceeding. In fact, the rules only provide a two-stage process
of deliberation on the sufficiency of any impeachment complaint: the first
being sufficiency as to form, and the second being sufficiency as to substance.
These are the only threshold matters to be deliberated upon by the Committee
on Justice on the sufficiency of an impeachment complaint, nothing more,
nothing less.47
47See
23
48
24
65. Allowing the discussion of prejudicial questions is a legal anomaly and can
only stem from a gross misunderstanding of criminal procedure as applied in
an impeachment proceeding.
66. In fact, any sophomore law student worth her salt knows what a prejudicial
question is all about. An eminent scholar of legal procedure, Prof. Antonio
Bautista, correctly describes the existence of prejudicial question as a
situation when,
25
68. The most cursory reading of these sections of the RULES OF COURT will
show that no such prejudicial question exists in the impeachment
proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.
69. The majority in the Committee on Justice has conveniently forgotten that this
is an impeachment proceeding. As such, it is sui generis. 53
70. It must be said that suspiciously, the prejudicial questions raised by Rep.
Lagman, along with the other arguments raised in COMMITTEE REPORT
1012 against the AMENDED COMPLAINT, all sound strikingly similar to
52RULES
53See
the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Reynato Puno in the Francisco case, where
he says:
I therefore respectfully submit that there is now a commixture of
political and judicial components in our reengineered concept of
impeachment. It is for this reason and more that impeachment
proceedings are classified as sui generis. To be sure, our impeachment
proceedings are indigenous, a kind of its own. They have been shaped by
our distinct political experience especially in the last fifty years See G.R.
No. 160206, November 10, 2003.
26
those found in the ANSWER and the MOTION TO STRIKE filed by the
Presidents lawyer, Pedro M. Ferrer. In the first place, as raised in the
deliberations of the Committee on Justice by many of the endorsers and/or
complainants, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has no legal standing yet to appear
before the Committee on Justice. The pertinent provision of the RULES OF
PROCEDURE adopted by the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress
provides thus:
71. Indeed, both the Constitution and the RULES OF PROCEDURE prohibit the
filing of any pleading by the Respondent until after the Committee on Justice
has made a determination on the sufficiency of any impeachment complaint
with respect to form and substance.55 At this point in the impeachment
process, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has no personality to appear by counsel.
She as yet has no locus standi. Both the Answer and the Motion to Strike are
functus oficio, mere scraps of paper.
72. At any rate, a prejudicial question goes into the heart of substance. Under the
RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule III 5.[italics supplied] Just like the procedure in preliminary
investigation in ordinary criminal cases, the Committee on Justice, which acts as the investigating
prosecutor, shall determine on its own whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
If it is determined to be sufficient, then the respondent must file his answer, not a motion to
dismiss.
54
55
27
the existence of a civil case is often held as a defense in a criminal proceeding involving the
same issue, or at the very least, as something determinative of whether or not the criminal action
may proceed. See the discussion in Bautista, supra note 51, at 10.
The scholar of procedural law himself proposes to do away with the doctrine altogether. In his
study of the doctrine, he made the following conclusion:
The doctrine of prejudicial question serves no useful purpose. The
specter of confusing rulings on the same issues is just that a
specter[T]he doctrine has conduced to much harm and unnecessary
litigation over elusive and conceptually befuddling issues of sameness,
determinativeness and precedenceIt would be best to do away
altogether with the doctrine of prejudicial question. Let the criminal
court decide the issue regardless of whether the same or similar result is
contemporaneously litigated in a civil action. There is no good reason for
the criminal court, which may even be the same court, to defer to the civil
court. Bautista, supra note 51, at 24-25.
If that is so, this Honorable Committee will have done well to simply disregard these supposed
prejudicial and threshold issues raised by the Respondent, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and get on
with its duty to determine the sufficiency of form and substance of the three complaints now
before it.
57RULES
28
The
ORIGINAL
LOZANO
COMPLAINT is stricken with a
basic jurisdictional defect it was
not endorsed by a member of the
House of Representatives of the
13th Congress at the time it was
filed.
ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT was filed, it did not have the endorsement
of a member of the present House of Representatives.
of
any
jurisdiction
over
the
ORIGINAL
LOZANO
COMPLAINT.
58
30
79. The Constitution, which has established the parameters for the conduct of
impeachment proceedings, requires a verification for any impeachment
complaint to be valid, as can be seen in the following pertinent provisions of
the Charter:
60
31
Section 2.
81. Moreover, the RULES OF PROCEDURE specifically outlined the form of the
verification in this wise:
82. In the case of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its supplements,
none of them has been properly verified at all.
61
62
32
83. Instead, each of these pleadings only carried what amounts to a JURAT
usually found at the end of an affidavit, which is subscribed and sworn to
before a Notary Public.63
84. To illustrate, the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT only bears the following
statement at the end of the document:
85. Hence, it strains the credulity of ordinary citizens that despite this fatal
infirmity found in the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its
supplements, the Committee on Justice, through a majority vote, insisted that
the complaint is sufficient in form.
In contrast to the verification, a jurat "is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies
that the instrument was sworn to before him It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences
the fact that the affidavit was properly madeBuenaventura v. NBP Officials, G.R. No. 114829
March 1, 1995, citing Theobald v. Chicago Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 208; Young v. Wooden, 265 SW 24,
204 Ky. 694; and LORENZO M. TAADA & FRANCISCO A. RODRIGO, MODERN LEGAL
FORMS, VOL. I, 31 (6th ed., 1985). The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the jurat in this
wise: It is an act in which an individual on a single occasion,
63
64
33
86. Yet it is not surprising that the Majority in the Committee on Justice
preferred the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT its defects and infirmities
are an assurance that the President will not be impeached and convicted. It is
crystal clear that it cannot even pass the test of form, precisely because it has
not been properly verified.
87. Hence, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 could say with some air of nonchalance
and without any legal basis at all, that since Lozano is a member of the
Philippine Bar, his signature as a lawyer suffices [sic] a verification because
he was the one who prepared the complaint in his own behalf, not for his
client65 Certainly, a JURAT could not be considered substantial compliance
to the requirement that the complaint be verified.
88. Accordingly, it was in sheer bad faith that the Committee on Justice insisted
that it first tackle legally and constitutionally impermissible prejudicial
questions in order to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT.
34
90. Consequently, with the AMENDED COMPLAINT later dismissed, along with
the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, as a prohibited pleading, the Committee on Justice
then supposedly reviewed the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its
supplements, for a determination of substance, and thereafter dismissed it as
well.
The
LOPEZ
COMPLAINT
is
fraught
with
even
graver
infirmities flaws that render it,
like the ORIGINAL LOZANO
COMPLAINT and its supplements,
constitutionally and procedurally
infirm.
92. The LOPEZ COMPLAINT fares worse than the ORIGINAL LOZANO
COMPLAINT. Lopez labeled his complaint a verified one, which is farthest
from the truth, as the records of the House of Representatives, and its
Committee on Justice, will bear out. Like the ORIGINAL LOZANO
66See
35
93. In fact, the LOPEZ COMPLAINT is stricken with other formal and
substantive defects. For one, some three weeks after it was filed, or on July
26, 2005, the complainant withdrew the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, citing poor
health as a reason.
94. Then, on August 3, 2005, the complainant filed a pleading of the same date
styled as a Rescission of Withdrawal with the House of Representatives,
saying that [a]fter due consideration, and after having been advised by well
meaning friends that my participation in the proceedings is an imperative
duty as a law-abiding citizen, I have decided to rescind my withdrawal.
95. Hence, we have a LOPEZ COMPLAINT riddled with the following infirmities
(a) the complainant did not properly verify it; (b) he subsequently withdrew it
on July 26, 2005, or a day after it was referred along with the two other
complaints to the Committee on Justice; (c) he changed his mind and on
August 3, 2005, he filed with the Committee on Justice a Rescission of
Withdrawal.
67 The jurat in the LOPEZ COMPLAINT states thus: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
this 4 July 2005 in Quezon City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
Complainant/Affiant who understood and voluntarily executed this Complaint/Affidavitat 11.
For all intents and purposes, the LOPEZ COMPLAINT is a mere restatement of the ORIGINAL
LOZANO COMPLAINT.
36
97. Three reasons prevent the LOPEZ COMPLAINT from acquiring any legal
validity at all in the present impeachment proceeding.
99. In the second place, having withdrawn it, he cannot have the House of
Representatives re-institute it by the mere expediency of filing a Rescission
of Withdrawal for the reasons that (a) there is no such rescission under
either the Constitution or the RULES OF PROCEDURE, or even the 1997
REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [Hereinafter, RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE] or RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] and (b) granting that
such a rescission is allowed, the re-institution will still be of no legal effect
because the LOPEZ COMPLAINT has not been properly verified. In other
words, he cannot re-institute a complaint that cannot at all have any legal
effect because of a formal and jurisdictional infirmity.
The pertinent provision states thus: - Upon due referral, the Committee on Justice shall
determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance. If the committee finds
that the complaint is insufficient in form, it shall return the same to the Secretary General
within three (3) session days with a written explanation of the insufficiency. The Secretary
General shall return the same to the complainant or complainants together with the
committee's written explanation within three (3) session days from receipt of the committee
resolution finding the complaint insufficient in formRULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE III, 4.
68
37
100.
In the third place, while the complainant may in fact reformulate his
101.
102.
6969
complaint.
Under
the
Constitution,
the
RULES
OF
38
103.
Under
the
Constitution,
the
RULES OF PROCEDURE, and the
RULES
OF
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE,
the
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
has
already
superseded the ORIGINAL LOZAN
COMPLAINT and its supplements.
104.
jury proceeding.71
provides that the House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate
impeachment complaints.72 Moreover, the RULES OF PROCEDURE provide
that the House of Representatives, through the Committee on Justice,
70
See RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE II, 2 and RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE IV, 13.
71
72CONST.
art XI, 3.
39
105.
106.
107.
108.
With this in mind, it is easy to see why the argument about the need for a
73RULES
74See
75RULES
40
109.
before the Office of the Prosecutor knows that complainants may amend,
alter, withdraw or substitute their complaint-affidavit at will prior to filing of
the information.
110.
111.
112.
76
41
113.
114.
1.
2.
We have read the contents of this Complaint and
affirm that the allegations therein are true and correct to the
best of our own personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records.
115.
116.
77
42
117.
allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith.78
118.
Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial
justice. Since rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment
of justice, their strict and rigid application which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice
must always be avoided.79
119.
At any rate, no fault lies with the complainants in following the more
78 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146923, 30 April 2003;
Torres, et al. v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 149634, 6 July
2004).
79
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146923, 30 April 2003.
43
120.
considering
that
the
defective
ORIGINAL
LOZANO
80G.R.
44
91.
92. For this reason, the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, it having been filed
subsequent to the ORIGINAL LOPEZ COMPLAINT, is barred under the
Francisco case.
93.
94.
45
95.
96. For this reason, Petitioners also argue that in this instant case, there
really is only one impeachment proceeding to speak of, with three
impeachment complaints directed at the same impeachable officer,
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.
97.
82
See ANNEX G-2, a copy of the Order of Business of the House of Representatives in plenary, for
July 25, 2005, under the section Reference of Business, through which the three complaints were
simultaneously referred to the Committee on Justice.
83
46
lack.
98. But this is how constitutional law scholar, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., sees
things:
[W]e next look at what the Constitution prohibits. It
prohibits the initiation of more than one "impeachment
proceeding." It does not necessarily prohibit more than one
complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited
only if the multiple complaints would require more than
"one proceeding." But if they can be logically and
conveniently combined into one proceeding, there would be
no violation of the Constitution.
In the current controversy, the so-called "amended
complaint" and the Lopez complaint, both transmitted on
the same day to the Justice Committee together with the
Lozano complaint, are nothing more than "bills of
particulars" to accompany the Lozano complaint. They both
elaborate on the one constitutional offense of "betrayal of
public trust." For constitutional purposes, therefore, what is
being initiated is only "one proceeding involving one
complaint but with an extended bill of particulars...84
99. Under Rule 65, when any tribunal, corporation or board, officer or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
84Fr.
Joaquin Bernas, Betrayal of Public Trust, Inquirer News Service, August 21, 2005, available
at http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=47628&col=136 <last visited,
September 7, 2005>.
47
48
(a) to amend
103. The Petitioners have a real interest in how the House of Representatives
in plenary
and
the
Committee
on
Justice
carried
out their
49
104. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the exclusive power to initiate
impeachment cases lodged by the Constitution before the House of
Representatives refers to that legally mandated ability of the House of
Representatives alone to accept, act on, investigate and decide on any
and all complaints for impeachment that comply with the requirements
set by the Constitution.
105. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the grant of that power to the
House of Representatives is not a grant of an unbounded and absolute
discretion to exercise that legally mandated ability. Such power, such
ability, is, as it has always been, coupled with the bounden duty to
exercise the same pursuant to the purposes such power has been
designed to address and within the limits set under the Constitution.
106. As such, that exclusive power carries with it or includes the positive duty
to accept, act on, investigate and decide preliminarily the merits of the
charges in any complaint or complaints that may be filed before it, much
like the judicial power which includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies85
85
50
108. The denial of their right is a direct injury that must be immediately
redressed, if their constitutional right is to be protected and upheld.
109. In the case of the Petitioner, Rep. Martinez, the Supreme Court itself has
this to say,
110. For what the Committee on Justice did was to resort to the most absurd
of technicalities to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINT but was liberal
in its acceptance of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT as being
sufficient in form. What resulted was a most farcical exercise worthy of
the theatre of the absurd, except that the most cruel joke was inflicted
on a public hungry for the truth about the serious allegations being
raised in the impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
President of the Philippines.
86
51
87II
52
G. CONCLUDING STATEMENT
114. Clearly, the House of Representatives, when it ratified by a vote of 15851 the constitutionally contemptible acts of the Committee on Justice as
recorded
in
COMMITTEE
REPORT
1012,
committed
an
53
117. It is the bounden duty of this Honorable Court to resolve such a conflict
where the Constitution itself provides for the means and bases of its
resolution.90 In the words of Dean Pacifico A. Agabin, another noted
scholar of constitutional law,
88
That is, to paraphrase the words of the ancient Jewish sages commenting in the Talmud on the
nature of presumptuous judgment. See THE LIVING TALMUD: THE WISDOM OF THE
FATHERS AND ITS CLASSICAL COMMENTARIES 164 (Goldin, ed., & trans., 1957)
89
90
Francisco, et al., v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003
Pacifico A. Agabin, Judicial Review of Economic Policy under the 1987 Constitution, 72 PHIL.
L.J 176, 184 (1997)
91
54
PRAYER
55
By:
ROGER R. RAYEL
PTR No. 6317921, 3.25.05, Quezon City
IBP No. 638438, 02159, Lifetime, Quezon City
Roll No. 44106
GARY S. MALLARI
Roll No: 48459
PTR No. 0009170, 1.7.05, Makati City
IBP No. 638439, 1.14.05, Q.C.
56
COPY FURNISHED:
57